Subscription software. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it's just stupid

[RDKirk]

Everyone hates subscription software. Sometimes, though, it makes sense. I have no problem paying my Adobe "Photographers Plan" for Photoshop because, frankly, I'd have bought all their upgrades anyway.

OTOH, paying subscriptions for a simple utility that hardly changes from upgrade to upgrade...dumb. A file syncing utility like GoodSync by subscription: Dumb. An application removal utility like Revo Uninstaller by subscription: Dumb.

Back in the day when I was using WordStar, I realized that it made best sense to buy every other update, because most of them didn't give me anything substantial. I guess for me that's the consideration. If every update or upgrade provides what I find useful, then a subscription works out. Now, I do make a distinction between "useful" and "existentially necessary," and I am biased toward useful.

 

[gjl711]

Unfortunately, everyone seems to be headed towards the subscription model. When you add them together, it starts adding up fast. I resisted the Photographers plan for quite a while but eventually there were several features I really wanted so they hooked me. Not disappointed so far. Adobe seems to be adding new features pretty aggressively.

 

[Nature's Spectrum]

I agree. I use Goodsync as well but I'm quickly converting to the utilities that come with a Synology NAS. SYNOLOGY Drive in particular which does much the same thing as Goodsync, although you need a NAS on one end to use it.

Winzip is another example where I would prefer a one time purchase.

 

[cdifoto]

Everyone hates subscription software. Sometimes, though, it makes sense. I have no problem paying my Adobe "Photographers Plan" for Photoshop because, frankly, I'd have bought all their upgrades anyway.

OTOH, paying subscriptions for a simple utility that hardly changes from upgrade to upgrade...dumb. A file syncing utility like GoodSync by subscription: Dumb. An application removal utility like Revo Uninstaller by subscription: Dumb.

Back in the day when I was using WordStar, I realized that it made best sense to buy every other update, because most of them didn't give me anything substantial. I guess for me that's the consideration. If every update or upgrade provides what I find useful, then a subscription works out. Now, I do make a distinction between "useful" and "existentially necessary," and I am biased toward useful.

I refuse to subscribe to Adobe as well.

 

[West Coast Birder]

My only subscription is for the Adobe photographer plan. Denoise AI makes it worth it for me.

 

[Arbby]

Photoshop because, frankly, I'd have bought all their upgrades anyway.

And would you continue to buy all the upgrades until you die?

When your interest or ability in photography declines are you going to carry on paying monthly just to be able to access your lightroom catalogue?

My only subscription is for the Adobe photographer plan. Denoise AI makes it worth it for me.

I have AI denoising in Photolab and Topaz neither of which require me to pay them forever.

 

[West Coast Birder]

And would you continue to buy all the upgrades until you die?

When your interest or ability in photography declines are you going to carry on paying monthly just to be able to access your lightroom catalogue?


I have AI denoising in Photolab and Topaz neither of which require me to pay them forever.

Sure, but that’s just more software I need to load and maintain. There’s no single answer that works for everyone of course, but for me, paying 10 bucks a month for a single solution that is always current is worth it. YMMV.

 

[Wilt]

'worth it'...

a hobbyist for a lifetime since teens (like I am), might practice the hobby for 60+ years. Put $10 away each month, earning 4% compounded monthly (not even the daily compounding of passbook savings) would amount to over $29,900. And that does not even consider fees increasing from time to time. According to

Federal Reserve SCF Data https://www.synchronybank.com/blog/median-retirement-savings-by-age/​

the median savings for someone at age 50 is only $100000, so 30% more savings is nothing to sniff at

Not hard to increase your money at 4%...it is what the Dow Jones has managed over the past half century; it has managed 11% over the past 30 years.

 

[RDKirk]

And would you continue to buy all the upgrades until you die?

Well, I'm 70 years old now, so, probably, yes. When your interest or ability in photography declines are you going to carry on paying monthly just to be able to access your lightroom catalogue?

.

At least as long as I'm mentally capable to make the decision. I don't, however, use Lightroom's catalog function. I use a catalog system that doesn't depend on any particular application.

 

[RDKirk]

'worth it'...

a hobbyist for a lifetime since teens (like I am), might practice the hobby for 60+ years. Put $10 away each month, earning 4% compounded monthly (not even the daily compounding of passbook savings) would amount to over $29,900. And that does not even consider fees increasing from time to time. According to

Federal Reserve SCF Data https://www.synchronybank.com/blog/median-retirement-savings-by-age/​

the median savings for someone at age 50 is only $100000, so 30% more savings is nothing to sniff at

Not hard to increase your money at 4%...it is what the Dow Jones has managed over the past half century; it has managed 11% over the past 30 years.

That's a "false dilemma" argument. It's not as though the decision is Adobe or poverty. Practically everyone who own a DSLR is easily already spending more than $10 a month on entertainment and hobbies, and is going to continue to do so. Just make a decision what entertainment to cut back on to afford a $10 subscription and put away some money.

 

[West Coast Birder]

'worth it'...

a hobbyist for a lifetime since teens (like I am), might practice the hobby for 60+ years. Put $10 away each month, earning 4% compounded monthly (not even the daily compounding of passbook savings) would amount to over $29,900. And that does not even consider fees increasing from time to time. According to

Federal Reserve SCF Data https://www.synchronybank.com/blog/median-retirement-savings-by-age/​

the median savings for someone at age 50 is only $100000, so 30% more savings is nothing to sniff at

Not hard to increase your money at 4%...it is what the Dow Jones has managed over the past half century; it has managed 11% over the past 30 years.

Oh dear, I better then put and end to my habit of enjoying a double espresso on the weekend at my neighborhood coffee shop. Heaven forbid we spend some of our money on something that makes us feel good or save time or is more convenient because, well, compound interest!!

 

[Wilt]

That's a "false dilemma" argument. It's not as though the decision is Adobe or poverty. Practically everyone who own a DSLR is easily already spending more than $10 a month on entertainment and hobbies, and is going to continue to do so. Just make a decision what entertainment to cut back on to afford a $10 subscription and put away some money.

Agreed. It is simply that so many folks dismiss the cost as insignificant..."It's only $10 per month, $120 per year!" forgetting what compounding can do if one contributed that to a savings account instead. My figure illustrates that 60 years 'cost' is not simply 60 * $120. eyes wide open. Similarly at $4 cup of coffee from a cafe every working day amounts to over $93,000.

 

[StephenM]

If you can stop paying a subscription and still use whatever version of the software you last paid for, that's one thing. If not maintaining your subscription means it's turned off on your computer, that's another. That puts you at mercy of too many imponderables. Adobe may be too large to fail, but probably so was Gulf Oil when I left their employ in 1979 (9th largest something or other in the US). Within 6 years of my leaving (no connection, honest) they went under.

The first version of Photoshop I used was v4. We kept up to date right until it became CC and stopped. The big pain for me was that upgrades were just that; to apply version x+1, you had to have version x installed. Change computer, and I had to dig out the PS4 disk and install it; then find the PS5 upgrade and install and so on.

Eventually, Adobe started turning off the validation servers, and made a version of CS2 available that never needed to phone home. As a result, I use CS2, in spite of having legitimate access to CS6.

There is one feature of CS3 - a bug fix, really - that I would like, but I can live without it. Not being a digital photographer but a black and white film user means I have less need of many things.

I suppose my experience with Photoshop upgrades and disk hunting have made me more averse to upgrades anyway. I have heard the horror stories of updates breaking Photoshop at critical times for photographers working to a tight deadline, and software that requires periodic validation by checking back is at risk of topping if the internet or phone lines are down for an extended period.

There's the old saying about people who see a glass is half empty, whereas others see it half full. I see a half empty glass that leaks...

 

[gjl711]

Agreed. It is simply that so many folks dismiss the cost as insignificant..."It's only $10 per month, $120 per year!" forgetting what compounding can do if one contributed that to a savings account instead. My figure illustrates that 60 years 'cost' is not simply 60 * $120. eyes wide open. Similarly at $4 cup of coffee from a cafe every working day amounts to over $93,000.

I'm guessing that the math would be very similar if you looked at buying the license outright as I'm sure your not going to keep the same version for 60 years.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm guessing that the math would be very similar if you looked at buying the license outright as I'm sure your not going to keep the same version for 60 years.

That's the point I was making. I was buying every Photoshop upgrade anyway.

 

[gjl711]

That's the point I was making. I was buying every Photoshop upgrade anyway.

Same here. Your not going to buy one version and keep it forever, well most wouldn't. Most would upgrade each release or every other release thus negating and profit realized over the subscription model. Photoshop cost what $699 USD and updates were $199 if I remember so over the 60 years, that's $12441 USD and when you start factoring in if you would have invested that $$, it probably would come out more.

 

[Wilt]

I'm guessing that the math would be very similar if you looked at buying the license outright as I'm sure your not going to keep the same version for 60 years.

As I already posted, if you put $10 away each month for 60 years, earning 4% compounded monthly (not even the daily compounding of passbook savings) would amount to over $29,900.

But instead, [put $10 away each month for a full year, then have 12 months of no added cost] and alternate that pattern for 60 years, earning 4% compounded monthly (not even the daily compounding of passbook savings) would amount to over $16,300, reducing total cost by $13000. Buying every other release (and skipping the cost every other year) is analogous.

 

[gjl711]

I'm really missing something in your math.
CSCC = $10USD monthly ir $120 yearly.
Year #1 I shell out $699 and $199 or $897, yes? (I am not counting the deals that occasionally would come up) Then the next upgrade would cost PS Non-CC = $199 + Lightroom = $99. So to prepare for the next year I would stick $24.75 a month into some interest bearing account letting it earn a few $$$. Then do the upgrade resetting me to zero + whatever I earned in interest. Do this for 60 cycles and I end up with 16K. But their subscription model is $177 cheaper a year so if I stuck that savings into a interest bearing account, wouldn't I have more?

 

[Nature's Spectrum]

If I'm recalling correctly, Lightroom still works if you let the subscription go. Now it may not allow you to edit development settings but my understanding is you can still access the information and export images.

We could use math to justify not spending most of what we spend for this pursuit. I have spent far more on equipment than I'll ever make with sold images I'm sure, and likely will continue to spend more. It's still an investment, and investment in my personal well being. The small percentage of that "spend" that is related to Adobe subscription software isn't that relevant in the grand scheme of things. If I couldn't afford it, I wouldn't do it... like most other things in life.

 

[Wilt]

I'm really missing something in your math.
CSCC = $10USD monthly ir $120 yearly.
Year #1 I shell out $699 and $199 or $897, yes? (I am not counting the deals that occasionally would come up) Then the next upgrade would cost PS Non-CC = $199 + Lightroom = $99. So to prepare for the next year I would stick $24.75 a month into some interest bearing account letting it earn a few $$$. Then do the upgrade resetting me to zero + whatever I earned in interest. Do this for 60 cycles and I end up with 16K. But their subscription model is $177 cheaper a year so if I stuck that savings into a interest bearing account, wouldn't I have more?

What you are missing:

1. If, instead of paying Adobe for subscription, you put away that cash into a pool of money that could grow at the APR of 4%, and that amount compounds itself for every additional later year...you would have an accumulated $29,900 in that account, not merely $7200 (60 * $120)
2. If, instead of paying Adobe for subscription ever year (but stopped putting money in every other year), you put away that cash into a pool of money that could grow at the APR of 4%, and that amount compounds itself for every additional later year...you would have an accumulated $29,900 in that account.

In my case, I purchased the predecessor to Lightroom, Rawshooter, for $99. I could skip a release, saving $99, and Adobe GAVE ME Lightroom V1, and I could still opt to skip buying one version for $99, but then decide to buy v3, etc...I bought v5 and v6, and then stopped, when they went to subscription. So I paid a total of 3 versions of Rawshooter and three versions of LR, for a total of $500 across an evolution of 9 versions of software, and have been using LR6 for multiple years at no added cost, spanning 20 years now. I need no new features, I need no 'new camera' support for its RAW files, so I have no need of further upgrade. Under subscription for that same 20 years, it would have been $2400 out of pocket (rather than the $500), Skipping releases every other year and paying $100 per release, my retirement account would be about $1400 smaller ($1000 paid out of pocket, and interest not realized)